|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law") | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Plenty of it was. How can you not know that ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: That's your assumption, but the evidence says otherwise.
quote: Maybe you should listen to the people who actually look at them, rather than relying on a few photographs which almost always show only a cross-section and often make it hard to pick out details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The idea that there were periods of time with identifiable and distinct fauna is clearly true. The strata and the fossils are all the evidence we need. The idea that these periods are "marked by a slab of rock, a particular kind of sedimentary rock, some covering most of a continent, most at least thousands of square miles" is nonsensical. You just made it up. You certainly didn't get it from us or any mainstream geological source - or even from those Creationsts who know something about geology. So please explain how you could possibly think that we believed that after all this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: The overlying strata do not follow the tilt of the Supergroup. That is one of the evidences that the tilt occurred before they were deposited. I assume that you are referring to what you call the "mounding" - but even then the question remains, specially as the "mounding" would be a later event anyway.
quote: It doesn't mean that the monadnocks were pushed up at all. The evidence that should be present if that occurred is completely missing. And even if you assume that it happened you have no connection between it and the "mounding"
quote: Of course, even if you are correct that would only apply to terrestrial deposits, and not all of those. So, I suggest that you substantiate your accusation. Which strata are held to have been deposited in similar circumstances and are they really too flat ? And then you can put yourself in our shoes, faced with a constant stream of falsehoods from you - repeated even after they are shown to be false. Being called "stupid" for telling the truth. Being accused of making personal attacks for pointing out the fact that you often avoid contrary evidence. How do you think that makes us feel?
quote: Of course, distance is important - you won't see small deviations from flatness on that photograph. So is the original environment and you don't mention that either. Until you actually deal with the relevant facts - the actual flatness, and the expected flatness you don't really have an argument.
quote: And so we come back to one of the original arguments for an Old Earth. The quantity of erosion. However, since we have good evidence for the erosion and none for a young Earth your argument fails. You're pretty much begging the question by asssuming you are right at the start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: The strata of the stratigraphic columns are many and varied. Before accusing me of deception you need to identify which of the strata are said to be "formed from motley sediments falling off a mountain onto a plain" and show that they are not.
quote: Really ? Please substantiate this claim. Note that erosion depends on environmental conditions, as well as the hardness - and form - of the rock. Also, that when Lyell came up with the argument he was hardly looking at the American Southwest.(Although I personally think that the Grand Canyon is an excellent counter-example) quote: Then you had better substantiate your accusations. Because if you don't we will know that you are the deceiver.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: In other words debate is "futile" unless you are allowed to make unsubstantiated accusations against your opponents. Nice coming from someone who continually complains about "personal attacks" whenever any criticism comes their way.
quote: It's certainly not true that all strata are flat, with no sign of erosion. Consider the monadnocks, or the channel being used as examples.
quote: Certainly it is not. Strata are composed of differing materials, have differing levels of flatness, greatly differing extents.
quote: We know that strata do form on a sea shore and that they include eroded material (sand) so it is hard to see what your objection is.
quote: And it doesn't matter. You can't prove a universal from a single example (and it is not clear that you are right - how long did it take for the hoodoos to form in the first place - that is a lot of erosion, how much height has been lost ?)
quote: By which you mean that you are losing because this debate is not a sham. If we were to unquestionably believe your every claim, if we have to do the work of supporting your points, this debate would truly be a sham. And yet that is exactly what you seem to be demanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Wrong. There isn't even a "the stratigraphic column" except perhaps as an abstraction combining the findings of many local stratigraphic columns. I won't address the point about the strata you posted until I have actual information on what they are. Obviously you have to deal with the actual claims about how they were deposited and even you don't seem to know about that.
quote: The current rate of erosion of the hoodoos is known. How to apply that to the erosion forming them without far more information certainly is not. If you want to claim that the present state was arrived it in only a few thousand years then obviously you have to address that, not the current rate at which they are disappearing. This is basic stuff, Faith.
quote: If it took ten thousand years your view is in deep trouble. And as I keep pointing out you can't prove that a few thousand years is enough to account for all erosion just from a single example. It's a ridiculous fallacy.
quote: Wrong, by my understanding Bryce Canyon is somewhat special, second you haven't made a valid estimate of the time required for anything, third all you could get from that is the time the erosion of those rocks started. It wouldn't and couldn't prove the Flood at all.
quote: You say that, but you haven't even really addressed the topic of this thread yet.
quote: You know, if all you can come up with is idiotic objections then maybe you should admit defeat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: You mistake a very simplified illustration - which was never intended to accurately depict real geology - for geological fact. And after the many discussions here you really, really ought to see that. Do you think the fact that the live pterodactyl in the diagram is meant to show that pterodactyls are still around today? Hardly a good start.
quote: So it doesn't include material that will be deposited in the future. That's your argument ? The top level is the Holocene. That is now.
quote: That's your opinion, and you have yet to adequately support it. Even your diagram disagrees.
quote: You know the fact that you are foolishly misinterpreting a diagram is a perfectly good reason for disagreeing with you. If you actually had a better case you could present it. Making personal attacks to try to cover your lack of a case is hardly an honest tactic.
quote: Given the fact that there are strata which show evidence of having been deserts it is hardly ludicrous to suggest that the same might happen to existing deserts.
quote: Real strata are quite often not flat. And the diagram you posted is not intended to show otherwise. Although deserts are pretty flat, and the compression needed to lithify them would tend to flatten them further.
quote: And another false personal attack to try to cover up the fact that you can't support your silly opinion. Or even really explain what you mean by it.
quote: And another personal attack to cover up the fact you have no case. Geology looks at the actual rocks in detail and finds correspondences with features of the surface (including sea and lake and river beds). You don't. You just want to throw out all that work without even bothering to look at it. I guess you have to. You know that the evidence shows that you are wrong. You declare the debate over because you know you can't win in any honest way.
quote: And that's just an assumption. Since you can't support it you just issue another personal attack and declare the debate over.
quote: Says the person who ludicrously misinterprets a diagram and thinks it a good argument. i need say no more.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024